[House Report 115-955]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
115th Congress } { REPORT
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 115-955
======================================================================
COMMON SENSE PERMITTING ACT
_______
September 20, 2018.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Bishop of Utah, from the Committee on Natural Resources, submitted
the following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 6106]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 6106) to amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to
clarify the authorized categorical exclusions and authorize
additional categorical exclusions to streamline the oil and gas
permitting process, and for other purposes, having considered
the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and
recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Common Sense Permitting Act''.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005.
Section 390 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, (42 U.S.C. 15942) is
amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 390. NEPA REVIEW.
``(a) NEPA Review.--Action by the Secretary of the Interior in
managing the public lands, or the Secretary of Agriculture in managing
National Forest System Lands, with respect to any of the activities
described in subsection (d) shall be categorically excluded from any
further analysis and documentation under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) if the activity is
conducted pursuant to the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.)
for the purpose of exploration or development of oil or gas.
``(b) Categorical Exclusion.--Use of a categorical exclusion created
in this section--
``(1) shall not require a finding of no extraordinary
circumstances; and
``(2) shall be effective for the full term of the authorized
permit or approval.
``(c) Application.--This section shall not apply to an action of the
Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture on Indian
lands or resources managed in trust for the benefit of Indian Tribes.
``(d) Activities Described.--The activities referred to in subsection
(a) are:
``(1) Reinstating a lease pursuant to section 31 of the
Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 188).
``(2) The following activities, provided that any new surface
disturbance is contiguous with the footprint of the original
authorization and does not exceed 20 acres or the acreage
evaluated in a document previously prepared under section
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)) with respect to such activity, whichever is
greater:
``(A) Drilling oil or gas wells at a well pad site at
which drilling has occurred previously.
``(B) Expansion of an existing oil or gas well pad
site to accommodate additional wells.
``(C) Expansion or modification of an existing oil or
gas well pad site, road, pipeline, facilities, or
utilities submitted in a sundry notice.
``(3) Drilling of oil and gas wells at new well pad sites,
provided that the new surface disturbance does not exceed 20
acres or the acreage evaluated in a document previously
prepared under section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)) with respect to such
activity, whichever is greater.
``(4) Construction or realignment of a road, pipeline, or
utilities within an existing right-of-way or within a right-of-
way corridor established in a land use plan.
``(5) The following activities when conducted from non-
Federal surface into federally owned minerals, provided that
the operator submits to the Secretary concerned certification
of a surface use agreement with the non-Federal landowner:
``(A) Drilling oil or gas wells at a well pad site at
which drilling has occurred previously.
``(B) Expansion of an existing oil or gas well pad
site to accommodate additional wells.
``(C) Expansion or modification of an existing oil or
gas well pad site, road, pipeline, facilities or
utilities submitted in a sundry notice.
``(6) Drilling of oil or gas wells from non-Federal surface
and non-Federal subsurface into Federal mineral estate.
``(7) Construction of up to 1 mile of new road on Federal or
non-Federal surface, not to exceed 2 miles in total.
``(8) Construction of up to 3 miles of individual pipelines
or utilities, regardless of surface ownership.''.
Purpose of the Bill
The purpose of H.R. 6106 is to amend the Energy Policy Act
of 2005 to clarify the authorized categorical exclusions and
authorize additional categorical exclusions to streamline the
oil and gas permitting process.
Background and Need for Legislation
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) defines a
categorical exclusion as ``a category of actions which do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the
human environment . . . and for which, therefore, neither an
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement
is required.''\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\40 CFR 1508.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 390 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorized
five categorical exclusions under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) for the
exploration and development of oil and gas.\2\ Specifically,
these categorical exclusions are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Public Law 109-58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Individual surface disturbances of less than 5
acres so long as the total surface disturbance on the
lease is not greater than 150 acres and site-specific
analysis in a document prepared pursuant to NEPA has
been previously completed.
(2) Drilling an oil or gas well at a location or well
pad site at which drilling has occurred previously
within 5 years prior to the date of spudding the well.
(3) Drilling an oil or gas well within a developed
field for which an approved land use plan or any
environmental document prepared pursuant to NEPA
analyzed such drilling as a reasonably foreseeable
activity, so long as such plan or document was approved
within 5 years prior to the date of spudding the well.
(4) Placement of a pipeline in an approved right-of-
way corridor, so long as the corridor was approved
within 5 years prior to the date of placement of the
pipeline.
(5) Maintenance of a minor activity, other than any
construction or major renovation or a building or
facility.
Under the Obama Administration, the Department of the
Interior often chose not to grant categorical exclusions when
processing applications for permits to drill or granting
rights-of-way, even when the proposed drilling operations or
pipeline placement would qualify for such designations under
the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Congress enacted these
categorical exclusions to streamline the permitting process for
certain activities that would modify or slightly expand
existing approved operations. Authorizing such activities would
have an insignificant impact on the environment; thus
additional analysis under NEPA is not needed to evaluate the
merits of the proposed action.
While Congress intended to streamline the permitting
process by excluding certain permit applications from higher
thresholds of NEPA analysis, the previous Administration's
decision not to utilize these categorical exclusions
exacerbated delays in the permitting process by requiring
extensive NEPA analysis on each and every permit application
submitted to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
This legislation would clarify the language in the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 to ensure that the Secretary of the Interior
utilizes the authorized categorical exclusions in processing
permit applications when applicable. If a proposed activity
included in an application for permit to drill or right-of-way
application qualifies for a categorical exclusion, BLM shall
not conduct further analysis under NEPA before approving the
application.
This legislation would also modify the existing categorical
exclusions and authorize additional categorical exclusions to
further streamline the permitting process for oil and gas
activities. This bill will authorize categorical exclusions for
activities that modify or expand existing operations in a
limited manner, activities that take place where drilling has
already occurred, as well as new activities that were
anticipated in previous analyses under NEPA or will result in
minimal surface disturbance.
Committee Action
H.R. 6106 was introduced on June 14, 2018, by Congressman
Stevan Pearce (R-NM). The bill was referred to the Committee on
Natural Resources. On June 20, 2018, the Natural Resources
Committee met to consider the bill. Congressman Pearce offered
an amendment designated #1; it was adopted by voice vote.
Congresswoman Nanette Barragan (D-CA) offered an amendment
designated 042; it was not adopted by a roll call vote of 17
yeas and 22 nays, as follows:
Congressman Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) offered an amendment
designated 001; it was not adopted by a roll call vote of 18
yeas and 22 nays, as follows:
Congresswoman Nydia M. Velazquez (D-NY) offered an
amendment designated 002; it was not adopted by a roll call
vote of 18 yeas and 22 nays, as follows:
No further amendments were offered and the bill, as
amended, was ordered favorably reported to the House of
Representatives by a roll call vote of 22 yeas and 18 nays, as
follows:
Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations
Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on Natural Resources' oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.
Compliance With House Rule XIII and Congressional Budget Act
1. Cost of Legislation and the Congressional Budget Act.
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) and (3) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
sections 308(a) and 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, the Committee has received the following estimate for the
bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, September 12, 2018.
Hon. Rob Bishop,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 6106, the Common
Sense Permitting Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Kim Cawley.
Sincerely,
Keith Hall,
Director.
Enclosure.
H.R. 6106--Common Sense Permitting Act
Summary: H.R. 6106 would allow the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) to expedite the approval of applications for
permits to drill (APDs) for oil and gas on federal lands by
excluding certain environmental analyses currently required by
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) from the
application process. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 6106
would accelerate oil and gas production on federal lands and
increase royalty payments to the BLM. However, using
information provided by the BLM and the Energy Information
Administration (EIA), CBO estimates that enacting the bill
would have no significant net effect on the federal budget over
the 2019-2028 period.
Enacting H.R. 6106 would affect direct spending; therefore,
pay-as-you-go procedures apply. The bill would not affect
revenues.
CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 6106 would not increase
net direct spending by more than $2.5 billion or on-budget
deficits by more than $5 billion in any of the four consecutive
10-year periods beginning in 2029.
H.R. 6106 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary effect of H.R. 6106 is shown in the following table.
The costs of the legislation fall within budget function 300
(natural resources and environment).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2019-2023 2019-2028
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INCREASES OR DECREASES (-) IN DIRECT SPENDING
Oil and Gas Royalties:
Estimated Budget Authority............................ 0 -35 -60 -95 -120 -30 35 90 125 60 30 -340 0
Estimated Outlays..................................... 0 -35 -60 -95 -120 -30 35 90 125 60 30 -340 0
Payments to States:
Estimated Budget Authority............................ 0 17 29 47 59 15 -17 -44 -61 -29 -15 167 0
Estimated Outlays..................................... 0 17 29 47 59 15 -17 -44 -61 -29 -15 167 0
Total Changes:
Estimated Budget Authority........................ 0 -18 -31 -48 -61 -15 18 46 64 31 15 -173 0
Estimated Outlays................................. 0 -18 -31 -48 -61 -15 18 46 64 31 15 -173 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Components may not sum to totals because of rounding.
Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the
legislation will be enacted near the end of 2018.
Direct Spending
H.R. 6106 would authorize the BLM to approve APDs for oil
and gas development on federal lands without requiring
producers to undertake certain environmental analyses listed in
NEPA. Using information provided by the BLM, CBO estimates that
forgoing those analyses would reduce the time required to
approve APDs by about 25 days, which CBO expects would
accelerate oil and gas production on federal lands.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\In 2017, the BLM's APD approval process required about 120 days,
on average: Drilling operators spent about 70 days on preparation, and
review and approval took about 50 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using information from the BLM and EIA, CBO estimates that
at the beginning of 2019, the BLM will have about 2,300 pending
APDs. CBO expects that under current law the BLM would reduce
the backlog of APDs carried over each year to about 600 by the
end of 2026, mostly for anticipated submissions of APDs late in
fiscal year 2025. Under the bill, CBO expects that expediting
the process would allow the agency to reduce the backlog to
roughly 600 APDs by 2023, thus reaching the same backlog in
about half the time. CBO estimates that accelerating the
production of oil and gas by expediting APDs would result in a
small net loss of royalty receipts to the government because
production would shift from later years, when oil and gas
prices are projected to be higher, to an earlier period, when
lower prices are anticipated. As a result, CBO expects that oil
and gas production would accelerate, thus increasing payments
of associated royalties to the federal government by $335
million over the 2019-2023 period; royalties would decline by
$340 million over the 2024-2028 period.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\CBO estimates that gross royalty payments to the Department of
the Interior will total about $10 billion over the 2019-2023 period and
$11.5 billion over the 2024-2028 period. Most of those royalties will
come from production from wells drilled before 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, CBO expects that the small loss would be offset by
shifting more receipts into 2019. CBO estimates that reducing
the time required for the BLM to approve APDs by 25 days would
accelerate production of oil and gas under APDs submitted each
year by as many as 10 days. Because for the purposes of this
estimate CBO expects that each year a roughly equal amount of
production would be shifted into the previous fiscal year, the
federal government would receive a net increase in royalties in
2019. Based on its estimates of about $800 per day in royalties
from the 1,350 new wells expected to begin production in 2019,
CBO anticipates that enacting H.R. 6106 would increase
royalties to the federal government by about $5 million for the
year.
Uncertainty
CBO aims to produce estimates that generally reflect the
middle of a range of the most likely budgetary outcomes that
would result if legislation was enacted. In estimating that
range of effects, CBO had to account for two major sources of
uncertainty.
First, although CBO cannot predict future oil and gas
prices precisely, this estimate relies on a projected path for
the 2019-2028 period that is part of the agency's economic
forecast. If prices fall, the forward shift in the timing of
oil and gas production would result in a net increase in
royalties because production volume would be higher when prices
were higher and lower when prices were lower. Conversely, if
prices increase faster or reach higher amounts than CBO
projects, accelerating oil and gas production would result in a
net reduction in royalties. Because APD submissions are
generally correlated with oil and gas prices, prices that are
significantly higher or lower than CBO projects would affect
the number of applications the BLM received, which would affect
how quickly it could reduce the backlog of pending APDs.
A second source of uncertainty concerns the lack of
information on the timing and quantity of oil and gas
production from particular wells in many states where such
drilling occurs on federal lands. CBO drew on production data
from certain other states along with information on royalties
from those states and others to estimate the bill's total
effect on royalties. Although obtaining more precise
information could have strengthened CBO's estimates of
royalties under H.R. 6106, CBO does not expect that the
informationwould have significantly changed its estimate of the
net budgetary effect of enacting H.R. 6106, given the same projected
price paths for oil and gas.
Pay-As-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go
Act of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement
procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or
revenues. The net changes in outlays that are subject to those
pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in the following table.
CBO ESTIMATE OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS FOR H.R. 6106, THE COMMON SENSE PERMITTING ACT, AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES ON
JUNE 20, 2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2018-2023 2018-2028
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NET INCREASE OR DECREASE (-) IN THE DEFICIT
Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Effect............. 0 -18 -31 -48 -61 -15 18 46 64 31 15 -173 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increase in long-term direct spending and deficits: CBO
estimates that enacting H.R. 6106 would not increase net direct
spending by more than $2.5 billion or on-budget deficits by
more than $5 billion in any of the four consecutive 10-year
periods beginning in 2029.
Mandates: H.R. 6106 contains no intergovernmental or
private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Kim Cawley; Mandates:
Jon Sperl.
Estimate reviewed by: H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis; Theresa A. Gullo, Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
2. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or
objective of this bill is to amend the Energy Policy Act of
2005 to clarify the authorized categorical exclusions and
authorize additional categorical exclusions to streamline the
oil and gas permitting process.
Earmark Statement
This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined
under clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives.
Compliance With Public Law 104-4
This bill contains no unfunded mandates.
Compliance With H. Res. 5
Directed Rule Making. This bill does not contain any
directed rule makings.
Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not
establish or reauthorize a program of the federal government
known to be duplicative of another program. Such program was
not included in any report from the Government Accountability
Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139
or identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program
Information Act (Public Law 95-220, as amended by Public Law
98-169) as relating to other programs.
Preemption of State, Local or Tribal Law
This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or
tribal law.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, and existing law in which no
change is proposed is shown in roman):
ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005
* * * * * * *
TITLE III--OIL AND GAS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle G--Miscellaneous
* * * * * * *
[SEC. 390. NEPA REVIEW.
[(a) NEPA Review.--Action by the Secretary of the Interior in
managing the public lands, or the Secretary of Agriculture in
managing National Forest System Lands, with respect to any of
the activities described in subsection (b) shall be subject to
a rebuttable presumption that the use of a categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) would apply if the activity is conducted pursuant to the
Mineral Leasing Act for the purpose of exploration or
development of oil or gas.
[(b) Activities Described.--The activities referred to in
subsection (a) are the following:
[(1) Individual surface disturbances of less than 5
acres so long as the total surface disturbance on the
lease is not greater than 150 acres and site-specific
analysis in a document prepared pursuant to NEPA has
been previously completed.
[(2) Drilling an oil or gas well at a location or
well pad site at which drilling has occurred previously
within 5 years prior to the date of spudding the well.
[(3) Drilling an oil or gas well within a developed
field for which an approved land use plan or any
environmental document prepared pursuant to NEPA
analyzed such drilling as a reasonably foreseeable
activity, so long as such plan or document was approved
within 5 years prior to the date of spudding the well.
[(4) Placement of a pipeline in an approved right-of-
way corridor, so long as the corridor was approved
within 5 years prior to the date of placement of the
pipeline.
[(5) Maintenance of a minor activity, other than any
construction or major renovation or a building or
facility.]
SEC. 390. NEPA REVIEW.
(a) NEPA Review.--Action by the Secretary of the Interior in
managing the public lands, or the Secretary of Agriculture in
managing National Forest System Lands, with respect to any of
the activities described in subsection (d) shall be
categorically excluded from any further analysis and
documentation under the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) if the activity is conducted
pursuant to the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) for
the purpose of exploration or development of oil or gas.
(b) Categorical Exclusion.--Use of a categorical exclusion
created in this section--
(1) shall not require a finding of no extraordinary
circumstances; and
(2) shall be effective for the full term of the
authorized permit or approval.
(c) Application.--This section shall not apply to an action
of the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of
Agriculture on Indian lands or resources managed in trust for
the benefit of Indian Tribes.
(d) Activities Described.--The activities referred to in
subsection (a) are:
(1) Reinstating a lease pursuant to section 31 of the
Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 188).
(2) The following activities, provided that any new
surface disturbance is contiguous with the footprint of
the original authorization and does not exceed 20 acres
or the acreage evaluated in a document previously
prepared under section 102(2)(C) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C))
with respect to such activity, whichever is greater:
(A) Drilling oil or gas wells at a well pad
site at which drilling has occurred previously.
(B) Expansion of an existing oil or gas well
pad site to accommodate additional wells.
(C) Expansion or modification of an existing
oil or gas well pad site, road, pipeline,
facilities, or utilities submitted in a sundry
notice.
(3) Drilling of oil and gas wells at new well pad
sites, provided that the new surface disturbance does
not exceed 20 acres or the acreage evaluated in a
document previously prepared under section 102(2)(C) of
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)) with respect to such activity,
whichever is greater.
(4) Construction or realignment of a road, pipeline,
or utilities within an existing right-of-way or within
a right-of-way corridor established in a land use plan.
(5) The following activities when conducted from non-
Federal surface into federally owned minerals, provided
that the operator submits to the Secretary concerned
certification of a surface use agreement with the non-
Federal landowner:
(A) Drilling oil or gas wells at a well pad
site at which drilling has occurred previously.
(B) Expansion of an existing oil or gas well
pad site to accommodate additional wells.
(C) Expansion or modification of an existing
oil or gas well pad site, road, pipeline,
facilities or utilities submitted in a sundry
notice.
(6) Drilling of oil or gas wells from non-Federal
surface and non-Federal subsurface into Federal mineral
estate.
(7) Construction of up to 1 mile of new road on
Federal or non-Federal surface, not to exceed 2 miles
in total.
(8) Construction of up to 3 miles of individual
pipelines or utilities, regardless of surface
ownership.
* * * * * * *
DISSENTING VIEWS
We oppose H.R. 6016 because it provides reckless
environmental waivers for the benefit of an industry that does
not need them at all.
Under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations,
federal actions that are categorically excluded from further
review are subject to a screen for extraordinary circumstances
that would require a harder look at the impacts of that action.
The idea behind this is simple: even seemingly harmless actions
may, in certain situations, actually have the potential to
cause real harm, and commonsense precautions should be taken to
ensure that this does not occur through federal actions that
otherwise would be performed without a second thought.
This legislation would eliminate the ability to perform
such basic checks for an activity that generally does have
significant environmental impacts: the drilling of an oil or
gas well. It is bad enough that the Energy Policy Act of 2005
created inappropriate categorical exclusions for oil and gas
drilling in the first place. Eliminating even the most cursory
review of the public health and environmental impacts of oil
and gas drilling is foolhardy and unnecessary.
Two Democratic Members, Mr. Gallego and Ms. Velazquez,
offered amendments that would have reinstated several of the
most basic extraordinary circumstances: checking for risks to
public health or safety, highly uncertain or potentially
significant environmental effects, highly controversial
environmental effects, unresolved conflicts with the use of
other resources, and disproportionately high and adverse
effects on low income or minority populations. Both amendments
were taken straight from existing federal regulations at 43
C.F.R. 46.215, yet during debate on the amendments the Majority
argued that the language was too vague and could never be used
effectively. It is clear that the Majority is not aware of what
extraordinary circumstances are, or how they are used under the
law, which makes it even more unfortunate that they would
report a bill that would do away with them for drilling oil and
gas wells.
Another Democratic amendment, offered by Ms. Barragan,
would have exempted from the bill wells that would be drilled
within one mile of homes, schools, or other buildings that
would require special protection. Despite the fact that this
would not actually block any wells from being drilled, and
would only ensure that additional scrutiny was paid to wells
that would be close to homes and schools, even this was deemed
too burdensome for the oil and gas industry by the Majority and
voted down.
One particularly concerning talking point that the Majority
used repeatedly during the markup was the idea that the
categorical exclusions would only be available for areas where
there had already been NEPA review performed twice. While
technically true, this is exceptionally misleading and
potentially betrays a deep misunderstanding of how NEPA works.
The first NEPA review is for a Resource Management Plan (RMP),
which typically covers millions of acres and looks only at
broad cumulative impacts of potential oil and gas development
scenarios. The second NEPA review is for the lease sale, which
is all too often (particularly under this administration)
treated as a purely administrative action that causes no actual
on-the-ground impacts. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will
invariably issue a Finding of No Significant Impact, or, more
likely, a ``Determination of NEPA Adequacy,'' which is a
finding that NEPA was already sufficiently performed at the RMP
stage, and is peppered with phrases like, ``additional site-
specific analysis would be conducted prior to the development
of these parcels.'' Only at the drilling permit stage does BLM
actually consider the conditions on the ground at the site
where a company wants to drill, but this legislation would mean
that in a huge number of cases, those conditions would never
and could never be considered. We find it ironic that Members
who decry ``one-size-fits-all'' management in favor of more
local control and taking into account specific conditions on
the ground would support legislation that forbids land managers
from actually taking into account specific conditions on the
ground.
Performing site-specific environmental analyses is far more
than the redundant paperwork exercise that the Majority makes
it out to be. First of all, NEPA is often the only way that
communities living near proposed drill sites learn anything
about drilling plans and have any way to comment on them. By
categorically excluding drilling applications, families will be
left in the dark and unable to have their voices heard on
issues that impact the health of their communities and the
level of pollution in their air, water, and soil. Second, there
are demonstrable environmental benefits to performing site-
specific reviews. The Government Accountability Office found in
2010 that the use of categorical exclusions provides incentives
for companies to do piecemeal development that could lead to
larger and more damaging impacts on the surface.\1\ A recent
review of wells in one Wyoming field office found that wells
approved using a categorical exclusion created 87 percent more
surface disturbance than wells approved using an environmental
assessment, and three times the amount of surface disturbance
than wells approved using an environmental impact statement.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\U.S. Government Accountability Office, Energy Policy Act of
2005: Greater Clarity Needed to Address Concerns with Categorical
Exclusions for Oil and Gas Development under Section 390 of the Act,
GAO-09,872, September 2009.
\2\M.K. Capone and J.C. Ruple, NEPA and the Energy Policy Act of
2005 Statutory Categorical Exclusions: What Are the Environmental Costs
of Expedited Oil and Gas Development?, 18 Vt. J. Envtl. L. 371
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, there is no compelling reason to pass a bill to
try to speed federal permitting by eliminating environmental
reviews. Recently the Committee was informed that companies
hold over 7,200 approved permits to drill that they haven't
used, and that BLM has gotten permit processing time down to
under sixty days. While the Majority and hearing witnesses from
right-wing think tanks have claimed that production on federal
lands has been stagnant or declining, the facts show otherwise.
From 2008 through 2016, oil production on federal onshore lands
went up nearly 60 percent; in New Mexico, production growth on
federal lands far outpaced non-federal lands in that same time
period.
The arguments made on behalf of this legislation by the
Majority are based on the idea that the importance of U.S.
public lands is limited to the number of oil and gas rigs that
are currently drilling on them. Making things cheaper and
easier for the oil and gas industry is, therefore, their only
goal. We believe that public lands belong to all Americans, and
should be managed in a balanced and responsible way to support
recreation, wildlife habitat, grazing, conservation, and other
uses in addition to energy development. For those reasons and
more, we strongly oppose H.R. 6106.
Raul M. Grijalva,
Ranking Member, Committee on Natural
Resources.
Nydia M. Velazquez.
Jared Huffman.
A. Donald McEachin.
[all]